Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

View

Discuss

Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

wiredmikey (1824622) writes "An Iranian judge has summoned Facebook founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg to answer allegations that his company's apps have breached people's privacy, it was reported Tuesday. The court in Fars province ordered that Zuckerberg address unspecified 'violation of privacy' claims made by Iranians over the reach of Facebook-owned apps, ISNA news agency reported. 'Based on the judge's verdict, the Zionist manager of Facebook... should report to the prosecutor's office to defend himself and make compensation for damages,' Rouhollah Momen-Nasab, a senior Iranian Internet security official, told ISNA. Access to social networks, including Twitter and Facebook, are routinely blocked by Iranian authorities, as are other websites considered un-Islamic or detrimental to the regime."

No country is on that list. They USA will never and has never extradited a person to another country.

Good thing you're an Anonymous Coward, because you're not even close to reality.
According to US Embassy based in London [usembassy.gov]:

During the same time period, the UK submitted 54 extradition REQUESTS to the US, of which none have been refused. Of those 54 requests, 38 resulted in extradition of an individual from the U.S. to the UK. In the remaining 16 cases, the individuals either returned to the UK on their own or other circumstances made extradition from the U.S. to the UK no longer necessary.

Um, some friends of mine got a fatwa from their imam about marriage recommendations last week. The word "fatwa" is the same thing as asking a member of the clergy for written advice.

Yes, there are problems with Muslim extremists, but I do wish people would stop turning the words "advice" and "school" into things meaning stuff they shouldn't?

Lets be real here: Iran has its problems, especially with extremists However, the country itself isn't evil, and Iranians in general see through the political BS more than Americans see through the CNN/Fox News/MSNBC charade.

In the scheme of things, the Iran court is a propaganda item to shore up the hard-liners who run the country. MZ isn't going to Tehran, nor will he be extradited there. If there were an extradition treaty, virtually every US and European citizen would be in deep trouble. The Iranian population knows this charade, and they likely will continue to quietly keep to their VPNs and continue to avoid the morality police/IRG members.

Again, one needs to separate Iran (the government from the Iranian people.) The people are smart enough not to use a jube as a waterslide.

Lets be real here: Iran has its problems, especially with extremists However, the country itself isn't evil, and Iranians in general see through the political BS more than Americans see through the CNN/Fox News/MSNBC charade.

Um, some friends of mine got a fatwa from their imam about marriage recommendations last week.

I understand what you are trying to explain about fatwas, but that is still very creepy for me, that someone would go for written approval from a religious figure for any important decision in their own lives. If you told me that your friends went to a Catholic priest, a Hindu Holy man, the Dalai Lama or Oprah Winfrey for recommendations, I would make me feel just as creepy.

Friends of mine are adults, with their own free will, and decided for themselves that they wanted to get married. It was their decision.

So what do your friends do when the their imam issues a fatwa on how to trim their garden . . . ? Or who to vote for in the next election . . . ? Or that their neighbor is a Zionist . . . ? Do they have free will and responsibility in their lives . . . ?

I feel that this reliance on religious authority is exactly what eventually leads folks down the path to commit atrocities in the name of religion . . . because, well, it wasn't their decision . . . it was made by a higher authority.

I understand what you are trying to explain about fatwas, but that is still very creepy for me, that someone would go for written approval from a religious figure for any important decision in their own lives. If you told me that your friends went to a Catholic priest, a Hindu Holy man, the Dalai Lama or Oprah Winfrey for recommendations, I would make me feel just as creepy.

Like the president of the United States of America, who solicits written advice from a bishop, an archbishop, a reverend, a most reverend, a sister, an elder and a rabbi?

Considering he hasn't added any humanists or atheists to his advisory staff, yes, I do find that rather creepy.

There's a pretty short list of what is considered acceptable grounds for annulment.

You might believe that, but practice is a bit different. My parents were married for six years, then (civilly) divorced. Two years later, they remarried each other (I have no comment on how smart my parents are) or, in the Catholic view, "renewed their vows." This marriage lasted another two years or so before they separated for good (the divorce followed along a couple of years later).

Fast forward a decade and a half, and my father (who in the interim married a second wife and had a second divorce) wants to marry a devout Catholic who refuses to marry outside of the Church. My father was able to obtain an annulment despite the opposition of my mother, her family, and my father's entire family (my grandmother (dad's mom) felt strongly enough about it to write letters to an archbishop and a cardinal). The archdiocese of Oakland saw no reason not to grant the annulment, and did so.

While I do wish my father domestic happiness, the result here is completely absurd, and goes to show that if you send enough money the church's way, morality is flexible.

To be fair, the Judge didn't say that. Some IT security guy did. Also, there are 25-35,000 Jews living in Iran, so it definitely isn't enough to get you prosecuted on its own. I'm not saying things are wonderful for them, but despite the harshness of their laws there is procedure and some kind of due process available. Jews do travel there without incident.

Speaking of racism though, you seem to have some fairly strong and not entirely accurate views about Iran.

My completely unresearched guess as to where that myth comes from would be the idea that a large number, if not a large majority, of immigrants to the United States from Germany, Poland, and some other eastern European countries were Jews fleeing the Nazis.

I find it strange that Iran is trying to prosecute him for violating the privacy of people in every country OTHER THAN Iran...or, presumably, any other Western Infidel-blocking countries. If facebook is blocked in Iran, why would they give a fuck about it violating someone's privacy? Other than publicity.

There is no way I see Zuckerberg appearing in an Iranian court anytime soon, regardless of the charges. I personally wouldn't step foot in the country myself, as an atheist, I'd be risking my neck because I'd likely say something stupid and get myself thrown in prison for heresy.

Which is sad because the country has quite a bit of history, and from everything I've heard the residents are actually a friendly and cordial people -- unless it's a lynch mob whipped up by the propaganda machine:(

Which is sad because the country has quite a bit of history, and from everything I've heard the residents are actually a friendly and cordial people

I've known many people over the years who identify themselves as 'Persian'.

They've been exceedingly nice, smart people for the most part. But, even they try very hard to distance themselves from Iran, the land of the batshit crazy.

And, I'm sorry, but the present-day country called Iran is no place I'd ever want to go. The historical Persia which had art, and science, and philosophy (and tolerance), and lots of cool things... that I'd love to see.

But don't ever forget there's a difference between the historical entity, and the present one. And the present one is ruled by crazy idiots.

But, even they try very hard to distance themselves from Iran, the land of the batshit crazy.

I just met a guy who claimed "Iranian" heritage. His (muslim) family left "Iran" in the 1800's, and moved to Lahore.

On the other hand, I live in a neighborhood with Jews most of which moved from the Islamic Republic of Iran shortly after they revolution. They call themselves "Persian".

As per Wikipedia, the term "Eran" is found to refer to Iran in a 3rd-century Sassanid inscription, meaning "Land of the Aryans".

On the other hand, the country has been known in the West as "Persia" from the Greeks "Persis", meaning land of the Persians. There are Persians in Iran, but not all Iranians are Persians. Some Iranians are Lurs, Ossetians, Kurds, Pashtuns, Balochs, and Tajiks.

In 1935, Reza Shah requested that the international community refer to the country as Iran.

Regardless of my actual ethnicity or religion, if my last name ended in...berg I wouldn't go anywhere near Iran.

"Berg" is a common German family name. Both the Germans and the Iranians are the Aryan race. Thus, the "Berg" families would be closer to the Iranians than most other westerners.

Note that the nation changed its English name from Persia to Iran at the insistence of Nazi Germany, to identify itself with Aryan pride (before the second world war). The words Aryan and Iran are cognate.

Zuckerberg wouldn't even need to say anything. He'd be jailed as an evil Zionist spy or some other nonsense the moment he tried to leave the country. I wouldn't fare any better with the last name Levine. You couldn't pay me enough money to travel to Iran.

I suspect an athiest's trial in Iran would last exactly five seconds longer than mine would (I'm not a religious Jew, but I am a secular Jew. I'm pretty sure the Iranian justice system wouldn't care about the difference).

I'm not trolling at all. As a fellow jackass, I just don't see how religion has anything to do with it.

What you describe is no different than a Christian asking Jesus to bless a Jewish wedding, or a Muslim preparing a nice onion-and-garlic sauce for an Ananda Marga meal. It's also no different from making dead-baby jokes in front of the mother of a stillborn child, or discussing depressing topics at a celebration.

Being "not constantly aware" is indeed the problem, but again, that has nothing to do with your

The fact that you're making that comment is a pretty strong statement about the (un)likelihood of that actually happening.

As long as the guy getting killed without due process isn't you it's cool right?We've been through this before. If they can take someone elses rights away, they can take yours away to. It's as simple as that.

Well, that's not the example given. The president certainly could have a single person killed for some arbitrary reason, he's already doing it. Which is what the OP had suggested. We've no idea how widespread the governments clandestine activities have gone. People disappear in this country all the time. 1 in 100 are in prison right now. How do we know a lot of that isn't politically motivated? If you'd have suggested such a thing to me a few years ago I'd have laughed. But ever since Snowden and the drone

Yes, you can be killed without due process here in the US. Muggings, traffic accidents, natural disasters - there are all sorts of horrible ways to die here in the US, none of which involve due process or warning.

At the hands of the state without due process? Haven't heard about that one here. I call bullshit on your post.

"Go to country where I can get my hand cut off for offending the authorities? No."

If you're a US resident, don't forget that you already live in a country where you can be killed without warning or due process (or made to disappear for the rest of your life) for offending the authorities. (Or even for having a name that some cretin thinks is like some other name that some other cretin put on a list).

If you consider plotting a real crime against the government or people of the US as 'offending an official', I might buy into that. Other than that, this statement is from fantasy land.

don't forget that you already live in a country where you can be killed without warning or due process (or made to disappear for the rest of your life) for offending the authorities.

No you can't. There is no assassination in the United States of US citizens. You most certainly can choose to comply with due process even if you live abroad. If you fail to comply, and determined to be a threat, then you can be killed. That's not without "due process" it is a more limited process.

Looks like NONE of the US carriers go there. Is it because they don't like money? That can't beright. Is it because they are shareholder driven and their shareholders are all either dirty jewsor clean jews or some combination of clean and dirty jews? That seems unlikely.

You have a point; it's even more of a point when you realise that "satan" means adversary. Now it means more in the USA when you say "Satan" -- but Christianity uses the name to represent "The Devil" or "Lucifer" -- in which case "the great satan" wouldn't really fit, as that would imply more than one satan.

And I think it's safe to say that Khomeini and his regime considered the US their great adversary -- as did the USSR at the time.

So many arguments throughout history began as a misunderstanding about wo

Hmm, as I recall China managed ~100 million since WW2. Which makes it number one of all time, I think. The USSR was number 2, the Germans (in ww2) were number 3, we may be number 4 (though there's a strong case to be made for Vietnam, and a weaker one for North Korea).

The USA has on a number of occasions extended its own laws to cover interactions with foreigners over the Internet. You only have to look at a certain naturalised New Zealander who the US have tried to extradite (Mega something or other, wasn't it)

The European Union isn't perfect either, as this "Right to Be Forgotten" law also seems to want to establish national law when the dealings are with foriegn companies that essentially only have sub-offices over here. In actual fact, the Iranian allegations of "Invasion of privacy" are fairly similar to the European Union position, which is one reason why I hope that the silly ruling is buried in some manner.

With Kim Dotcom's/Mega case, the US tried to extradite him and he was detained by New Zealand authorities. It wasn't a covert black ops where he was kidnapped in the darkness of night. New Zealand obviously was working with the US (even if the US was pulling the strings)

With the EU's law if the company has a nexus somewhere in the EU then the company needs to comply with EU laws.

The likelihood that the US or just about any other country that Zuch would visit would cooperate in detaining him in any manner is

If we send the Beeb's in Zuck's place I think we could make everyone happy. Iran gets a white boy they can prosecute or just hold without cause for a really long time and the US no longer has to put up with his illegal actions or that noise he purports to call music. Considering there's a petition before the White House to have him deported back to the Canada anyway, I vote we offer this as an alternative.

The White House already responded to the petition [whitehouse.gov] and refused to comment on his specific situation, despite the fact that over 270K people signed the petition, making it one of the most (if not the most) supported petition yet on the site.

Interesting that none of the comments so far talk about the blatant privacy violations that facebook commits on a regular basis. Even more so, nobody talks about the fact that violating your privacy - or convincing you to willingly give up private information - is the very business model of facebook.

Say what you want about Iran, but they do have a point here. Will anyone listen to them? Probably not.

You're right, when I upload pictures of my drunken escapades to a social networking site to an account tied to my real name, and my real friends and family, I really do expect that they will be held in the strictest confidence.

While I have no love for Facebook -or Zuckerberg - and its invasive policies, I have to wonder if Iran has any jurisdiction over Facebook anyway?

Does Facebook run any servers in Iran? Do they have any offices in Iran? Do they actively seek to bypass attempts by the Iranian government to block its citizens from accessing Facebook? And, if so, do they have any evidence that Zuckerberg himself is behind these heinous "crimes"?

The very fact that this judge is calling on Zuckerberg himself (and using inciteful l

You seem unaware that if you volunteer your private information to the interwebs, it becomes public.

IOW, if you don't like Facebook, don't use it. Noone is making you start a Facebook page (well, I should qualify that: noone has ever tried to force ME to make a Facebook page. Maybe I'm special, and the rest of you lot are held at gunpoint until you have your Facebook page set up).

Interesting that none of the comments so far talk about the blatant privacy violations that facebook commits on a regular basis. Even more so, nobody talks about the fact that violating your privacy - or convincing you to willingly give up private information - is the very business model of facebook.

That's because everyone here knows that. It's not news.

Say what you want about Iran, but they do have a point here. Will anyone listen to them? Probably not.

Well, nobody cares, because everybody knows it's coming apart, take one last look etc etc. I mean, privacy is going away, whether we like it or not. We only have to decide what we're doing about it. Will we decide to live and let live, or continue to go to war with one another over our differences, only now armed with the terrible knowledge of just how many differences we have? Oh sure, we'll learn about similarities too, but for some reason we don't se

it should be reiterated that when the government of Iran refers to "zionist" its usually directed toward leaders of israel (who are, admittedly, zionist.) Extending this descriptor to Zuckerberg based solely on his last name feels like the court is making a leap of faith. It wouldnt surprise me if the whole thing is a 'look over there!' maneuver from local courts to deflect criticism of Irans own violations of privacy as they pertain to the internet. Certainly no respectable political or legal figure in

I'm sorry, but Facebook just reorganized how they display postings and the Fatwa didn't appear. Maybe they would like to advertise with Facebook to ensure that their Fatwa status updates appear at the top of everyone's feeds?